Southwestern New Mexico’s Chino Mine opened in 1910. Under current rules, copper mines are allowed to pollute the underlying groundwater as long as they obtain a “variance,” or exemption, from the Water Quality Control Commission.

Wikimedia Commons

Five reasons you—yes, you!—should connect the dots on copper

State to rule Tuesday on water-pollution rules

September 9, 2013, 8:00 am

By Laura Paskus

This week, state officials will make a decision that could
affect New Mexico’s groundwater forever.

Almost a year ago, the New Mexico Environment Department
proposed a new rule related to copper mine pollution and groundwater. The state, mining companies, scientists,
community members, and environmental advocates spent seven months hammering out
a draft rule.

Just before releasing it to the public, however, NMED’s top
attorney changed it to include provisions friendly to Freeport McMoRan Copper
& Gold, Inc., which owns three copper mines in New Mexico. As
SFR reported in May:“Rather
than prescribing and enforcing how mines must keep waste from seeping into
groundwater, the new rule allows NMED to defer to mining companies themselves.”

In case rules and regulations set you snoozing, here are
five reasons SFR readers should pay heed to the state’s proposed copper rules:

1. According to the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office and
environmental groups opposing the rule, as proposed by NMED, the copper rule
violates the state’s 1978 Water Quality Act, which protects the state’s
streams, rivers, and lakes—as well as the underground networks of water that
most communities in New Mexico rely upon for drinking water.

2. Prior to coming to NMED in 2011, general counsel Ryan
Flynn—the person who changed the draft rule in 2012 before it went public—was
an associate attorney at Modrall Sperling, a law firm that counts Freeport among
its clients. Flynn’s no longer the top lawyer at the department:In April 2013, Gov. Martinez named
him the new Cabinet Secretary-designee of NMED.

3. During last spring’s hearings on the rule, NMED tried to
block Bill Olson, the former bureau chief it had hired to write the rule, from
testifying before the commission. Olson, who spent 25 years working on groundwater
issues and is a former commissioner himself, ended up testifying as a private
citizen.So who did NMED line up
to defend the rule? An acting director who wasn’t involved in the rule-making
process and a private contractor it paid
$75,000 to act as an expert witness.

4. NMED’s proposed rule overturns the state’s earlier victory
over Freeport. More than a decade ago, Freeport and NMED began duking it out over
the Tyrone Mine, which includes eight open pits and 2,800 acres of leach ore
stockpiles and waste rock piles. NMED disagreed with Freeport’s claim that
since water beneath the mine would never be used for drinking water, it could
pollute there with impunity.